This is a very poor defense for those who misuse and abuse benefits.
Benefits are intended for life situations where they are needed. Long sick leaves, studies, the first moments of parenthood - all temporary life situations where support is needed for a relatively short period.
The group in question lives on these benefits, and many of them have no intention whatsoever of ever detaching themselves from the safety net they provide.
There is a clear difference here that should be remembered.
This, for example, keeps the wages in some low-wage sectors in check when the labor shortage doesn’t completely get out of hand, e.g., nurses. Whether that’s good or not probably depends on the viewpoint. Here, however, low wages are generally considered a good thing; in the case of nurses, the salary and support are ultimately paid from taxes.
In my opinion, we’ve already gone wrong from the start if practitioners of a profession requiring reasonable responsibility and study need support to live. The importance of a profession can be measured, for example, by looking at how society reacts if they threaten to strike…
Quite a few well-off people seem to view all beneficiaries/low-wage earners as some kind of parasites, and, thinking somewhat in a Trump-like fashion, believe they aren’t grateful enough for the support that has been excessively doled out.
There are always freeloaders and exploiters. You can’t get rid of them. It’s just a reality that can’t be escaped and must be accepted. So what is their actual number? Hard to say. Certainly not the same as the number of unemployed. Should their existence be taken out on, for example, the sick or those who genuinely try and want to work?
Among the wealthy, there are also these benefit exploiters and other tax evaders.
Now I’ll throw out my own estimate pulled from a hat: The latter group certainly receives more public money than the former group.
That’s not what we’re trying to claim here. And certainly not regarding those who are employed. Let’s leave the name-calling aside and focus on the problem itself.
The basic goal is that every fundamentally healthy citizen should be able to support themselves through their own work. With the current demographic structure and development, we cannot afford for ordinary people to have to pay in their taxes for the lives of other ordinary people. Correcting this would require unemployment to be only temporary and for everyone to find new work within a reasonable time – which, unfortunately, is also unrealistic.
What I’m trying to say, I guess, is that in the future, able-bodied people will have to take more responsibility for their livelihoods because the state only has debt, and taxpayers cannot be squeezed any more.
I don’t think there’s even a generally accepted definition for them
In contrast, there was a recent Helsingin Sanomat article about a media professional who became unemployed. When they couldn’t find work in their own field, they started looking for other jobs, and when those weren’t found either, they started looking abroad. They ended up, if I recall correctly, as a cafe worker in Austria or something similar.
The list above could be continued, and different people would mark completely different points as parasitic. The future is interesting, where technological development can reduce the need for employees in many sectors. Is it then OK to opt out of working life, or should an unemployed lawyer go to the McDonald’s cashier for lack of a better option?
In my opinion, nursing is not a low-wage sector. The average salary is apparently over 3000e nowadays, and total earnings with benefits are then significantly more depending on the situation. You can’t really call that a low-wage sector. Practical nurses and other assistants are a different matter.
It’s not about revenge, but about creating the same rules for everyone. We have unemployed people for a huge number of reasons:
It’s not easy to develop a system that covers all different cases. But in the current economic situation, in my opinion, the only way is to weaken benefits so that at least some can get back to work faster. According to studies, for example, shortening the duration of earnings-related unemployment benefit also shortens the length of the unemployment period. I bet the same happens when the level is lowered. Frost drives the pig home, meaning lack of money drives some of the unemployed to work. Not all, of course.
Tax evasion is, of course, illegal. But otherwise, on average, the wealthy and high-income earners pay significantly more taxes than they receive in transfer payments due to high progression and greater consumption. There is probably no disagreement on that.
Well written. I would add that in the end, it doesn’t really matter what causes unemployment. If one is healthy and able to work, it will be the individual’s responsibility to find work themselves: study, move, etc. But of course, not everyone can find work. In that case, one must settle for a very low standard of living.
In Finland, there is a somewhat distorted view of the welfare state. The purpose is for the welfare state to take care of people who need help: the sick, children, and the elderly. A healthy working-age person does not need these; it is their responsibility to find a job and take care of themselves. Well, if you now say what if there is depression or some ailment, then of course the welfare state takes care of it. But even after this, there is still a large number of people without jobs who have all the prerequisites to look for a job or develop their skills until work is found. The foundation of the welfare state cannot sustain healthy working-age people throwing themselves into its lap; there are already many who genuinely need support.
Of course, you can say that not everyone can find work. That is also true, but nothing prevents that work from being found if one is willing to put in the effort. However, the current system to some extent makes it possible not to have to look for work very seriously. I know this sounds harsh, but the state (=taxpayers) cannot endlessly maintain the standard of living for all willing people through debt.
How large a group?
In January 2021, there were a total of 164,000 unemployed people in Finland, and in January 269,000, which is an increase of about one hundred thousand, even though social security has been weakened and “incentives” increased.
One always hears about this large group, but I haven’t personally come across anyone other than that one person who is repeatedly interviewed in different newspapers as an ideological unemployed person.
At least the government doesn’t seem to want this to happen, as it was going to abolish adult education support and job alternation leave.
Remember to use the Election Compass and especially share it with relatives and acquaintances who are not usually that interested in politics. So that they don’t go and vote for Teuvo Hakkarainen or some beauty queen just because it’s the only name they recognize from the newspaper.
And urge them to vote…
Musk has been X-ing again:
Musk is probably trying to convey that bureaucrats are the root of all evil everywhere. Strangely enough, YLE only highlights the far-right, even though the message lists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Of course, the world’s richest man is clearly very right-wing and not left-wing, and believes in authoritarianism more than democracy.
When I read the headline, I thought Musk had denied the Holocaust, but that wasn’t the case after all. But the point here is that one man cannot murder millions; rather, his loyal followers carry out the work. I certainly wouldn’t equate a US federal official and a concentration camp commander to the same group.
Hitler and the Nazis are the only arch-villains, even though the Germans have at least taken responsibility for it and dealt with it. Instead, these two communist tyrants are still respected in their home countries and elsewhere.
Politician and provocateur Musk spends so much time on Xitter that sometimes he even gets it right.
Europe’s general leftward shift has led to even those in power craving regulation for almost everything nowadays.
Of course, I’m not referring to the common market, etc., but to all sorts of fluff that the regulatory superpower, with its multi-level structures and our rigidification, produces.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1900308382239936994?t=0xi1Lk4An25q9Y9zhOO9QA&s=19
Now, the EU Commission is indeed embarking on (long-awaited) deregulation efforts to finally boost the stalled economic growth. And at the same time, of course, investments are being made in the economy and industry on a broad front.
Here is researched information on the disadvantages of taxation. Corporate taxation is not a big problem in Finland, but there is a lot to fix on the personal taxation side. The tax regressivity of earned income is poison to the economy, as is known, and this should be addressed primarily. The marginal tax rate should never be over 50%.
Capital taxation for natural persons should also be reformed. The high demand for investment insurance and share savings accounts (OS-accounts) indicates that the system is not working. A lower tax rate combined with a broader tax base yields a better outcome. For example, a 25% tax on capital income combined with a 50% dividend relief for everyone (including unlisted companies) would be a good start.
It’s an interesting situation when I visit Spain’s largest Mercadona on a Monday evening and many products (e.g., tomatoes) are out of stock. It makes one think about the importance of security of supply in a country like Finland, which cannot compete with Spain’s climate in food production.
This reminded me of a story I saw earlier in the day, which asked whether the costs incurred by conscription should be included in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. Puolueet vaativat Natoa laskemaan arvon Suomen varusmiehille – vain kokoomus ja Liike nyt vastustavat | Politiikka | Yle
Yes, it should, and in my opinion, defense spending should also take into account the portion of agricultural subsidies that maintain critical security of supply. Our own food production is not an insignificant factor in defense capability, but a critical part of it.
I buy the logic, but where does this line of reasoning end? In addition to food, a long list of other things can be listed as critical for security of supply. And if we think far enough, we will continue to need soldiers for defense, so shouldn’t all support and costs related to having children also be included in defense spending?
In my opinion, the answer to the question of whether conscription costs should be included in defense spending depends on the purpose of the question. If we are currently satisfied with our defense capability but want to show the alliance sufficient investment on paper, then by all means, let’s include them. But in the current security situation, I would under no circumstances include them, because the requirement of a certain GDP percentage is one more reason to invest further in our defense capability, especially if some pacifists still need additional reasons besides the neighbor who started a conquest and the decrease in investment from Europe’s most important ally.
Why do you think that Finland’s tomatoes are grown in Närpiö summer and winter? Far from the eastern border. Greenhouse gases don’t really matter at -30 degrees Celsius. And soldiers don’t eat tomatoes in war. And not even the Greens prevent it.
Combat ration packs often contain tomatoes or other vegetables/fruits mixed with the food. An army marches on its stomach, except for a scurvy-ridden, deficient army, which doesn’t march anywhere.
Argentinians are apparently starting to get fed up with Milei’s ways; as far as I understand, protests that started peacefully have turned violent when supporters of Buenos Aires football teams joined the demonstrations, and that crowd is completely crazy and there are many of them. In Europe, perhaps only Serbs and Russians are capable of such irrational behavior as Argentinians.
Apparently, no one is interested in domestic politics anymore when the orange horror takes all the attention? 
Here’s another topic for discussion. It might be that I’m the only one who agrees with the Finns Party on this matter (as well). I don’t know exactly how they define “the poorest” and how many there are, but here’s another possible stunt to throw a billion or two of taxpayers’ money into the endlessly swelling swamp of social and healthcare costs.
Generally, I’d prefer that service fees go up and taxes go down (or well, with Finland’s current debt level, probably just service fees up) as long as we don’t go to the USA level. Let those who use the services pay their own costs as long as they can afford it. As long as those in direct mortal danger receive treatment regardless of whether they can pay or not.
I don’t know how much that payment cap is and if it’s the same for everyone, but since progressive numbers are liked in Finnish politics, then perhaps the cap could be raised for high-income earners and lowered for the poorest so that the total sum from the state does not at least increase.